Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Tomme73:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by Tomme73:
Is it joowahn or wahn? Do you believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? If so, what happened to them before the UN-approved inspection? If not, how do you define "weapons of mass destruction" and why would Bush's top advisors say there were WMD's in Iraq?
These are sincere questions. Please answer them honestly.


There is no evidence that Saddam had a functional WMD weapons system. A few hundred artillery rounds found buried and leaking does not constitute a legitimate threat. Saddam bluffed because he was more afraid of Iran than of the UN...he misunderestimated BushII. The USA went to Iraq on a nation building mission to secure mideast oil and increase the security of Israel. All along, the real threat has been Iran, a country which has long range missiles and access to nukes from North Korea/China.


Well, you didn't exactly answer my questions. Hussein DID have WMD's and used a variety on his own people. US troops DID find evidence of weapons manufacturing in Iraq. Certain US troops received information from Iraqis detailing the three countries where Iraq's WMD's were sent. Just because liberal-run, main-stream media refuses to report all the truth all the time, you don't have to ignore it as well.


Your questions are far too specific for me to answer. The WMDs that Sadam used on the Kurds in the 1980's may have been all he had. If Saddam had operable WMD weapons and delivery systems in 2003, he would have used them.

No information made available to the public can be considered absolutely accurate, complete or current. The Wikileaks info had alot of intel on the WMD question, and is probably the most meaningful.

Trying to obscure the lack of info by claiming a conspiracy by the liberal main stream media does not lend your point of view any credability.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by Tomme73:
Is it joowahn or wahn? Do you believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? If so, what happened to them before the UN-approved inspection? If not, how do you define "weapons of mass destruction" and why would Bush's top advisors say there were WMD's in Iraq?
These are sincere questions. Please answer them honestly.


There is no evidence that Saddam had a functional WMD weapons system. A few hundred artillery rounds found buried and leaking does not constitute a legitimate threat. Saddam bluffed because he was more afraid of Iran than of the UN...he misunderestimated BushII. The USA went to Iraq on a nation building mission to secure mideast oil and increase the security of Israel. All along, the real threat has been Iran, a country which has long range missiles and access to nukes from North Korea/China.


So, you advocate war with Iran!
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
quote:
The USA went to Iraq on a nation building mission to secure mideast oil and increase the security of Israel.

That worked out really well so far hasn't it?

Where's the oil?
Where's the security?


Oil is being pumped and sold as we type.(remember, nobody ever said we would get it for free, only that American oil companies would get the right to some of the oil fields)

Security is provided by the Chinese.

You really need to watch some of the documentaries on Link TV. That would explain a lot to you and we wouldn't have to do so much typing here.


And, you need to read the news.

"U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields"

http://www.time.com/time/world...8599,1948787,00.html

Please provide proof of Chinese security forces in Iraq!

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world...0.html#ixzz183fiUaYW
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
quote:
More to your point tho, one of the wars ,Iraq, had nothing at all to do with 9/11. It was planned by Cheney and his energy commission before he and W ever took office.


That is pure BS.


I refer back to:
(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.


No , it is not BS. I know FOX pushed Bush's agenda, but Bush had to lie to get the country to back his little war in Iraq. There was no need to wage war, and in fact we would most likely been a lot better off if Saddam were still in power. He hated the religious zealots (like Al Qaeda), and kept Iran at bay. (we won't even mention how Iran was coming closer to the US and even helping with the Al Qaeda problem before they were stunned by Bush calling them the "Axis of Evil", and the events the happened there afterward).
Like I said before, if Bush had intent on prosecuting the war in Afghanistan and killing Ben Laden when they had him bottled up at Tora Bora , we may could have been out of there by now.
I know, shoulda, woulda, coulda !


"Bottled up in Tora Bora!" Are you kidding, or are you completely ignorant of the geography of that area! To seal off the passes leading from Tora Bora would take every battalion in the active Army and the Marines. Not just the infantry and special ops, but using artillery and armor as dragoons, stripped of their cannon and tanks. How, would you deploy such an enormous force. It would take months for engineer battalions to scrape out landing strips. Then, all of the heavy lift planes to deliver such a force. The result would be men stuck on the ground with three days rations and ammo, only a battalion aide station for medical care. How would you resupply them?
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
The decision to oust Saddam was made by the principals at PNAC in the 1990's, many of which were members of the BushII admin. We could have terminated OBL at Tora Bora, but the decision was made to disengage. Who made that decision and why is unknown.


Since you comment is based on complete ignorance of the geography involved, I'm just cutting and pasting an answer. That's all it warrants!

"Bottled up in Tora Bora!" Are you kidding, or are you completely ignorant of the geography of that area! To seal off the passes leading from Tora Bora would take every battalion in the active Army and the Marines. Not just the infantry and special ops, but using artillery and armor as dragoons, stripped of their cannon and tanks. How, would you deploy such an enormous force. It would take months for engineer battalions to scrape out landing strips. Then, all of the heavy lift planes to deliver such a force. The result would be men stuck on the ground with three days rations and ammo, only a battalion aide station for medical care. How would you resupply them?
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Slick Willie had the guy on video courtesy of the CIA, never took the shot. They knew his whereabouts 5 times.

It is BS and Fox had nothing to do with it. Have you forgotten the unanimous backing of the Congress for Bush to do whatever it took?

If you sleep better thinking Bush was evil, so be it.

Facts state otherwise.


Actually I have come to believe that Cheney was really the man in charge during the 1st 6 years of that admin and called the shots. Bush just didn't seem to care one way or another about much IMHO.
Actually Clinton did take one shot, and was criticized by the Republicans in Congress for doing so ; they called it "the tail wagging the dog".

I have not forgotten that the invasion of Iraq was approved by a majority in Congress, but it was NOT unanimous, and I for one knew it was wrong to do so, but the bobble headed , fox indoctrinated sheeple had me and a lot of other people outnumbered.
Don't forget that the admin outed a covert CIA agent over her husband stating the truth about the nuclear ambitions of Iraq which did not "fall in line' with the Bush narrative.

BTW, and little of this was ever made because the majority of the country was for the 1st Gulf War, don't forget that Bush1 actually hired an advertising agency which made up all that stuff about Iraqi soldiers tossing babies up and spearing them on bayonets. They then hired the daughter to the Iraqi minister to tell that, although she had not been in her home country in years and years. All lies made up to incite the people of the US to back that war. (I thought it was the right thing to do because Iraq invaded one of our allies)
The Bush's have a way of lying . It seems to be their nature.


How could Valerie Plame be a covert agent at the time she was listed in a public directory as a CIA employee? (Tenth time I've posted this)

Please provide proof of such claims of Iraqi troops spearing babies on bayonets! Sounds like you're quoting an old WWI propaganda piece. Calling Americans sheeple, doesn't enhance your arguments, it just displays arrogance!
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Trying to obscure the lack of info by claiming a conspiracy by the liberal main stream media does not lend your point of view any credability.


You're one of the biggest conspiracy theorists on here since blaknwhite got banned and you're claiming that I AM shouting "Conspiracy!"?!? Let's see: If, we'll say, a respected US Army (Retired) Major General who has been immortalized in a major motion picture has told THOUSANDS of people there WERE WMD's in Iraq and "if anyone tries to tell you there were no WMD's in Iraq, they're either lying or stupid!," but none of this EVER makes it to main-stream media, couldn't someone deduce that there WAS INDEED a cover-up? "Well, we don't like Dubya, so we're not going to report anything that makes him look good. He got enough of that already."
I'll have to go back and look, though. Isn't this thread supposed to be about the middle class being over-taxed? I just had to refute what I believed to be false information on here. So, is the middle class over-taxed? Yes, so are other classes of people who pay taxes. Some are under-taxed and get refunds without paying into the system. How can you say you deserve a refund if you never paid anything to begin with? What it all boils down to is, obviously, taxes are not the answer. We're being taxed more now than ever before on anything and everything and are worse off than ever. What's the answer? Not taxes.
That is exactly what I meant. A general is perhaps the least reliable source of information. Where is the the independent third party info??? Images??? Your government lies to you daily, and on purpose, and has for 200 years.

The answer to the tax question is painfully simple. We should all pay the same amount. We all receive basically the same benefits, so the tax should be the same too. Just decide on a figure. $2000.00??? $4000.00??? It wont matter as long as the fedgov does not have to have a balanced budget.
quote:
Originally posted by Tomme73:
You're one of the biggest conspiracy theorists on here since blaknwhite got banned and you're claiming that I AM shouting "Conspiracy!"?!? Let's see: If, we'll say, a respected US Army (Retired) Major General who has been immortalized in a major motion picture has told THOUSANDS of people there WERE WMD's in Iraq and "if anyone tries to tell you there were no WMD's in Iraq, they're either lying or stupid!," but none of this EVER makes it to main-stream media, couldn't someone deduce that there WAS INDEED a cover-up? "Well, we don't like Dubya, so we're not going to report anything that makes him look good. He got enough of that already."
I'll have to go back and look, though. Isn't this thread supposed to be about the middle class being over-taxed? I just had to refute what I believed to be false information on here. So, is the middle class over-taxed? Yes, so are other classes of people who pay taxes. Some are under-taxed and get refunds without paying into the system. How can you say you deserve a refund if you never paid anything to begin with? What it all boils down to is, obviously, taxes are not the answer. We're being taxed more now than ever before on anything and everything and are worse off than ever. What's the answer? Not taxes.


I may not agree with your "football philosophy", but you nailed it right there....LOL...Amen!
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
That is exactly what I meant. A general is perhaps the least reliable source of information. Where is the the independent third party info??? Images??? Your government lies to you daily, and on purpose, and has for 200 years.

The answer to the tax question is painfully simple. We should all pay the same amount. We all receive basically the same benefits, so the tax should be the same too. Just decide on a figure. $2000.00??? $4000.00??? It wont matter as long as the fedgov does not have to have a balanced budget.


At least we can agree on this ↑ tax issue to an extent. Maybe not everyone paying the same amount, but the same percentage. Make it 10% and forget it. Give the IRS something else to do.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
The Flat Tax is not fair. Why should I pay $10,000 and Stephan Schwarzman(founder of Blackstone hedge/venture equity) pay $70,000,000???


A flat 10% isn't fair? If you make $100,000 a year, $10,000 sounds right to me. If Stephan Schwarzman makes $700,000,000 a year, $70,000,000 sounds fair, too. He still clears $630,000,000. What he does with that is his business.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Of course not. Taxation should represent the benefit received. If you drive on the roads,you pay fuel tax to pay for the roads, etc. Schwarzman is not receiving 700X the benefits of being an American that I am receiving.
People without kids should pay no property taxes.


What? 10% is 10%. Don't let amounts cloud your vision. If EVERYONE paid 10%, we wouldn't be in this mess. You have the non-tax-paying majority being funded by the tax-paying minority right now. What's fair about that?
quote:
Originally posted by Tomme73:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Yes, that is correct under our current system. The system is either fair or unfair, there is no middle ground, like grandma said, "you cant be a little bit pregnant".


Where do you stand? Is 10% FOR EVERYONE fair? If not, what IS fair?


quote:
The answer to the tax question is painfully simple. We should all pay the same amount. We all receive basically the same benefits, so the tax should be the same too. Just decide on a figure. $2000.00??? $4000.00??? It wont matter as long as the fedgov does not have to have a balanced budget.



Why should any citizen be forced to pay more than any other citizen???
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by Tomme73:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Yes, that is correct under our current system. The system is either fair or unfair, there is no middle ground, like grandma said, "you cant be a little bit pregnant".


Where do you stand? Is 10% FOR EVERYONE fair? If not, what IS fair?


quote:
The answer to the tax question is painfully simple. We should all pay the same amount. We all receive basically the same benefits, so the tax should be the same too. Just decide on a figure. $2000.00??? $4000.00??? It wont matter as long as the fedgov does not have to have a balanced budget.



Why should any citizen be forced to pay more than any other citizen???


If someone is making only $16,000 a year, $4000 is 25%. If someone is making $160,000 a year, $4000 is 2.5%. Does that sound fair to you? If someone is making $160,000,000 a year, $4000 is .0025%. Do you understand this simple math? You can't have people from everywhere in the income spectrum paying the same AMOUNT and have most agree that's fair. Let everyone pay the same PERCENTAGE and you'll get a lot more support. I GUARANTEE that.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
If public opinion is going to be the arbiter of fairness then you will find that our current system is the most fair. Sure it is.

I'll ask again. Why should any citizen be forced to pay more than any other citizen???


Is 10% more than 10%?

Breaking News:
LOCAL LOON LOSES LID LAMENTING LONE LIABILITY
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Your refusal to answer the basic fairness question is self-explanatory. For that matter, a flat rate tax is completely regressive.


I answered the question with a question. You asked why should any citizen pay more than any other citizen. 10% is not more than 10%. Your "everybody pays the same AMOUNT" is NOT practical. YOU completely ignore common sense. $1000 for someone who makes $10,000 looks like MUCH more to that person than $1000 does to someone who makes $1,000,000. It's just not using sound logic to think it's fair for everyone to pay the same AMOUNT.
To respond to an earlier post, what does having children have to do with property taxes? Enlighten me.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Most property tax is for education.


Now, respond to the rest of what I posted, please, kind sir.


Concerning property tax, what about home schooling, private schooling, or children who aren't in school yet? Better still, why pay property tax at all. You're taxed when you buy the property. Shouldn't that be enough?
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Fair Tax, it's progressive not regressive. The more things you buy,, the more tax you pay.
Food is exempt.

Why is food exempt ?
Reading up on the "fair tax" , it would give money back to people below a certain income level, so how is that fair ?
Problem with the "fair tax" is that, as has been proposed, not fair.
seeweed,
The proposal I had read described the first $40K of a family's earnings would be exempt, since that was determined to be a number for which living expenses could be accounted for. I know the figure is not exact, but the premise is that everyone would get one deduction for living expenses and everything else would be taxed.
The effort would be to catch those who deal in a cash only business (drugdealers, pimps, prostitutes, etc) on the consumption end of the cycle as well.
nothing is perfect, but this does make some sense if you can come up with a figure that would work for everyone (ie, 20%).
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Fair Tax, it's progressive not regressive. The more things you buy,, the more tax you pay.
Food is exempt.

Why is food exempt ?
Reading up on the "fair tax" , it would give money back to people below a certain income level, so how is that fair ?
Problem with the "fair tax" is that, as has been proposed, not fair.


The Fair Tax book I read actually purposed giving everyone regardless of income the same payment. The money was to offset the taxes a average sales taxes a family would pay per year on the essentials i.e. food, utilities.
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:
seeweed,
The proposal I had read described the first $40K of a family's earnings would be exempt, since that was determined to be a number for which living expenses could be accounted for. I know the figure is not exact, but the premise is that everyone would get one deduction for living expenses and everything else would be taxed.
The effort would be to catch those who deal in a cash only business (drugdealers, pimps, prostitutes, etc) on the consumption end of the cycle as well.
nothing is perfect, but this does make some sense if you can come up with a figure that would work for everyone (ie, 20%).


After reading b50's link to refresh my memory, I still think the "fair tax" is not fair. Why a "prebate" ? AND I also would be concerned with the psychological effect it would have on most people (especially the less- informed) and the consumer driven economy we now find ourselves in. For example, that $1.00 apple now cost $1.30, so "can I do without it" mindset sets in, and there goes the sale of the apple, and all the downstream effects therin (the grower, the picker, the transporter, the grocery store etc)


My personal preference is a flat tax on income with no deductions and no lower limit. In fact, the most likely change to the tax code as it stands is to eliminate a lot of deductions.
Now , a personal digression please: I once had a pretty good friend when I lived in Memphis. He had married a girl from Spain, and ultimately got a job and moved there. He told me that the tax code was a flat 4%, and since it was that way for everybody, when an employer quoted a salary to a person, it was actually take-home pay. I don't know if Spain still has that tax code, or how it worked out in the long run, but something like that sounds pretty good to me.
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:
seeweed,
The proposal I had read described the first $40K of a family's earnings would be exempt, since that was determined to be a number for which living expenses could be accounted for. I know the figure is not exact, but the premise is that everyone would get one deduction for living expenses and everything else would be taxed.
The effort would be to catch those who deal in a cash only business (drugdealers, pimps, prostitutes, etc) on the consumption end of the cycle as well.
nothing is perfect, but this does make some sense if you can come up with a figure that would work for everyone (ie, 20%).


After reading b50's link to refresh my memory, I still think the "fair tax" is not fair. Why a "prebate" ? AND I also would be concerned with the psychological effect it would have on most people (especially the less- informed) and the consumer driven economy we now find ourselves in. For example, that $1.00 apple now cost $1.30, so "can I do without it" mindset sets in, and there goes the sale of the apple, and all the downstream effects therin (the grower, the picker, the transporter, the grocery store etc)


My personal preference is a flat tax on income with no deductions and no lower limit. In fact, the most likely change to the tax code as it stands is to eliminate a lot of deductions.
Now , a personal digression please: I once had a pretty good friend when I lived in Memphis. He had married a girl from Spain, and ultimately got a job and moved there. He told me that the tax code was a flat 4%, and since it was that way for everybody, when an employer quoted a salary to a person, it was actually take-home pay. I don't know if Spain still has that tax code, or how it worked out in the long run, but something like that sounds pretty good to me.


About Spain, their taxation method really doesn't matter, at this stage. Between over regulation of business, useless spending (green jobs that destroyed 2.3 jobs for every green job created), and over spending, they, like Greece, Italy, Portugal and Iceland, are dragging the rest of the EU down.

"MADRID (AP) - Ratings agency Moody's on Wednesday warned it may downgrade Spain's debt because the government is vulnerable to a borrowing crunch next year, when the recapitalization of weak banks could prove more costly than expected for public finances.

The agency, which lowered Spain's rating from Aaa to Aa1 in September, says it will review the rating again because of high financing needs in 2011 but does not expect the country to need a bailout.

The government's bond yields have risen to high levels in recent weeks amid Europe-wide debt market turmoil. Investors fear that countries like Spain or Portugal will have trouble handling heavy debt loads and require emergency help, like Greece or Ireland.

Spain is considered a risk because it is still struggling to emerge from nearly two years of recession, has the highest unemployment rate in the eurozone and a swollen deficit."

More at:

http://apnews.myway.com/articl...01215/D9K4AB1G0.html
The first rule of taxation is that is should not reach a point of diminishing returns -- a level that produces less revenue the higher the level goes. The Laffer curve addressed that -- zero percent taxation produces zero taxes, just as 100 percent taxation produces zero taxes. Except that, 100 percent also produces mobs with torches, pitchforks and various implements of destruction; followed by tumbrels and guillotines.

Ideally, taxation should support a society of saving and investment vs. consumption. Originally, most national taxes were import duties and excise taxes.

However, the progressives/left/liberals can't help themselves as to taxation above the point of diminishing returns, even if less revenue and stalled economy is the result. Income redistribution is, to them, a religion. Facts will not sway their beliefs. Rather like the present sages at the University of Medina who claim the world is flat. Or the Vatican, hundreds of years ago, which insisted that Earth was the center of the universe. They had figured out the round Earth thing.

The present inheritance/death tax argument is a good example. The left insists upon a death tax -- direct high taxation on assets at point of death, no matter the consequences. I would suggest an inheritance tax. If the assets are cash or an investment portfolio, then perhaps tax it at point of death. Although, it would be in the best interest of government and inheritors to allow an investment portfolio to be sold over 12-months so as to maximize profit for both and avoid liquidation during a market downturn. If, the assets are property -- homes, farm or business, then delay taxation until the inheritors sell the assets. That way, spouses and children aren't taxed out of their homes or farms. Nor, must businesses be sold to satisfy the IRS.

However, as stated, its a religious matter with the left. Incomes must be leveled, no matter the consequences.
Somebody school me: was Lincoln a progressive/leftist???

* A direct tax on inheritances imposed in 1862 during the Civil War ranged from 0.75 percent to 5 percent.
* The top rate was raised to 6 percent in 1864; but the tax was then abolished July 14, 1870.
* In 1898, an estate tax with a top rate of 15 percent on estates over $1 million was imposed to pay for the Spanish-American War -- then repealed on April 12, 1902.

America's fourth estate tax, enacted in 1916, set a top rate of 10 percent on estates over $5 million. It was raised to 25 percent in 1917, but this rate applied only to estates over $10 million. Unlike its predecessors, it was not repealed after the war, although the top rate was dropped to 20 percent in 1926.

President Franklin Roosevelt raised the top rate to 60 percent in 1934, and to 70 percent in 1935.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Somebody school me: was Lincoln a progressive/leftist???

* A direct tax on inheritances imposed in 1862 during the Civil War ranged from 0.75 percent to 5 percent.
* The top rate was raised to 6 percent in 1864; but the tax was then abolished July 14, 1870.
* In 1898, an estate tax with a top rate of 15 percent on estates over $1 million was imposed to pay for the Spanish-American War -- then repealed on April 12, 1902.

America's fourth estate tax, enacted in 1916, set a top rate of 10 percent on estates over $5 million. It was raised to 25 percent in 1917, but this rate applied only to estates over $10 million. Unlike its predecessors, it was not repealed after the war, although the top rate was dropped to 20 percent in 1926.

President Franklin Roosevelt raised the top rate to 60 percent in 1934, and to 70 percent in 1935.


Lincoln was seeking revenue to fund an emergency -- the War of Northern Aggression. Same may be said for the Spanish-American War. Wilson, our first true progressive president approved the new inheritance tax. Teddy Roosevelt continued it. It took FDR to take the tax to the max.

Old dog juan hunt presents obfuscation to misdirect my points about taxation as a leveling tool resembling a religious tenet amongst the regressives.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:
seeweed,
The proposal I had read described the first $40K of a family's earnings would be exempt, since that was determined to be a number for which living expenses could be accounted for. I know the figure is not exact, but the premise is that everyone would get one deduction for living expenses and everything else would be taxed.
The effort would be to catch those who deal in a cash only business (drugdealers, pimps, prostitutes, etc) on the consumption end of the cycle as well.
nothing is perfect, but this does make some sense if you can come up with a figure that would work for everyone (ie, 20%).


After reading b50's link to refresh my memory, I still think the "fair tax" is not fair. Why a "prebate" ? AND I also would be concerned with the psychological effect it would have on most people (especially the less- informed) and the consumer driven economy we now find ourselves in. For example, that $1.00 apple now cost $1.30, so "can I do without it" mindset sets in, and there goes the sale of the apple, and all the downstream effects therin (the grower, the picker, the transporter, the grocery store etc)


My personal preference is a flat tax on income with no deductions and no lower limit. In fact, the most likely change to the tax code as it stands is to eliminate a lot of deductions.
Now , a personal digression please: I once had a pretty good friend when I lived in Memphis. He had married a girl from Spain, and ultimately got a job and moved there. He told me that the tax code was a flat 4%, and since it was that way for everybody, when an employer quoted a salary to a person, it was actually take-home pay. I don't know if Spain still has that tax code, or how it worked out in the long run, but something like that sounds pretty good to me.


About Spain, their taxation method really doesn't matter, at this stage. Between over regulation of business, useless spending (green jobs that destroyed 2.3 jobs for every green job created), and over spending, they, like Greece, Italy, Portugal and Iceland, are dragging the rest of the EU down.

"MADRID (AP) - Ratings agency Moody's on Wednesday warned it may downgrade Spain's debt because the government is vulnerable to a borrowing crunch next year, when the recapitalization of weak banks could prove more costly than expected for public finances.

The agency, which lowered Spain's rating from Aaa to Aa1 in September, says it will review the rating again because of high financing needs in 2011 but does not expect the country to need a bailout.

The government's bond yields have risen to high levels in recent weeks amid Europe-wide debt market turmoil. Investors fear that countries like Spain or Portugal will have trouble handling heavy debt loads and require emergency help, like Greece or Ireland.

Spain is considered a risk because it is still struggling to emerge from nearly two years of recession, has the highest unemployment rate in the eurozone and a swollen deficit."

More at:

http://apnews.myway.com/articl...01215/D9K4AB1G0.html


Thanks for the update. I guess that makes the point that lower taxes are not the cure-all for financial problems.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×